“NATO means war! No to the new NATO Strategy“

Date: Saturday, November 27, 2010, 2:48 PM Dear friends and colleagues, please find a first evaluative article of the actions of the international network "No to war - No to NATO". The actions were manyfold, creative, peaceful and non-violent. Please find the ICC Conference Statement in English, French, Dutch, and German. Further translations are more than welcome and will be put on the website. On www.no-to-nato.org you can find plenty information on our actions: in the video section we have and continue to link video material of the Counter Summit and the demonstration as well as TV reports on our actions; in the press section you will find newspaper articles on our actions (if you have more media coverage, please send us links and we will post it on the webpage). We wish you all a wonderful winter time and a good slide into 2011 and would like to thank you for the support of the actions against NATO. Greetings, Reiner and Lucas "NATO means war! No to the new NATO Strategy" is the message in the final declaration of the international Counter Summit parallel to the official NATO Summit. At the Counter Summit more than 250 participants from 21 countries discussed about the new NATO Strategy and peaceful civil alternatives. The Counter Summit was being organized by the international network "No to war – No to NATO". Unanimously, the participants evaluated the new strategic concept as war-mongering and called for an alternative: a just world without war and nuclear weapons. Defining for the Counter Summit was the clear cognition that encompassing disarmament, the end of wars and the abolition of military bases can only be reached against NATO's will. The call for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan grows stronger and broader. At the Counter Summit the dominant opinion called for a stronger connection and networking of the international peace movement which needs to coordinate more effectively its work against the military alliance of NATO. The communist party of Portugal (PCP) stood alone in neglecting "an internationalization of the protests against NATO"! For a left party, this position is not credible. The Counter Summit developed new arguments which encourage to strongly work against the implementation of the new strategic concept. Words followed actions: about 100 participants of the Counter Summit engaged in successful actions of civil disobedience on Saturday morning in which an entrance way of the congress center of the NATO Summit was blockaded non-violently. According to the organizers of the demonstration (Paz sim – NATO nao) about 30,000 people followed the call of the Portuguese Peace Council, the international network No to war – No to NATO, as well as many other organizations and parties and demonstrated peacefully and non-violently in Lisbon. No to NATO was heard throughout the city center. Red flags were the dominant accessories of this demonstration for peace which should have deserved the highlighting of collectivity for peace instead of sectarian behaviors. The summon up of violence by the media really took place: precisely, in the form of not allowing 200 activists to the demonstration and in detaining 41 activists of civil disobedience which were kept detained without being allowed to contact to lawyers. This is strictly illegal! Once more it became obvious that NATO and democracy are not compatible. As well as NATO means aggression to the exterior, it means decomposition of democracy and participation in the interior. By now all detained were set free. A successful media and public outreach campaign spread our word on the dangers of NATO to a broad audience. The activities for peace were being spread to NATO countries and in the whole world. This is a success due to continuity of the protests by the international network, the engagement of the peace movement in between the summits as well as due to the livestream on the internet. The charisma of the engagement was encouraging and shows that the debates on violence have passed and a contentual debate on politics of war is again in the focus. For this, non-violent actions are inevitable. It was important and good to protest in Lisbon moving and acting: we made a small step towards the delegitimization of NATO. Where ever NATO meets, where armament and war are propagandized, the international peace movement will be. We will not stand still and quiet – until the abolition of NATO. In total another impression stays: the successful international cooperation crossing political and ideological borders, crossing party and organizational structures within the international network "No to war – No to NATO" has not enough spread enough to Portugal to reach collective actions of the peace and leftist groups. But this is what is needed in the struggle against the most powerful military alliance of the world. To think out loud, this was an obstacle to a broader, bigger and more charismatic mobilization. Reiner Braun, ICC No to war – No to NATO -- Lucas Wirl Karlsgartenstrasse 5 12049 Berlin   -- ____________ Al Burke, samordnare Stoppa smyganslutningen till NATO! E-post: samordna@stoppanato.se Webbplats: http://www.stoppanato.se Tel. +46/(0)8 - 731 9200 Skype:  nordic.news

__,_._,___

Gerard M. Gallucci, Kosovo – the alternatives for the North

Kosovo – the alternatives for the North

Though northern Kosovo has been relatively calm of late, albeit with a series of minor incidents, it is doubtful that this situation can persist without continued restraint and an eventual political solution based upon one of two alternatives – special autonomy for the north or partition.

By Gerard Gallucci

Despite a series of minor incidents, northern Kosovo has been recently calm. The local Serbs seem to have reached an accommodation with Belgrade on a new opposition government in North Mitrovica. The new head of EULEX appears to have put aside any plans for using force to alter the status quo in the north and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reaffirmed in the Security Council the UN's continued role there despite criticism from Kosovo Albanians. The Albanians continue to inch their way into the north – stationing Special Police where they can in north Mitrovica to hassle local Serbs passing through and preparing for another season of unilateral construction near Serb areas. But with attention south of the Ibar on the December 12 general elections, and with the end-of-year holidays and cold winter weather looming, the relative quiet in the north should continue for the next few months.

Everyone is waiting too for the start of so-called negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina as referred to in the UN General Assembly last September. "So-called" because it is not at all clear what the two sides will be able to talk about, much less negotiate, given fundamental differences over Kosovo's status. There is also considerable divergence in how each side sees the talks. The Quint countries supporting Kosovo independence – US, UK, Germany, France and Italy – expect these talks to be the venue for Serbia to finally, one way or the other, accept the reality of an independent Kosovo. They look to Belgrade to agree to putting Kosovo customs and courts in the north. President Tadic would like to accommodate the Quint and keep Serbia's EU membership on track. But politically, he cannot accept any agreements seeming to recognize Pristina's independence or authority in the north. For Tadic, Serbia's "readiness" for talks is first of all a way to buy time while the Albanians have their elections and the holidays intervene. Beyond that, Serbia may seek to divert discussions onto topics on which the two sides might agree – missing persons, for one – or stake out status neutral positions on "technical issues" – such as the courts – that the Albanians will not accept (unless pushed by the Quint). Tadic may hope that, meanwhile, he will get lucky and the EU will reward him for playing nice.

At some point, everyone's contrary expectations for "negotiations" could lead again to stalemate. But if real negotiations begin, then the question of the north will beg solution. If a frozen conflict over the north is to be avoided – and leaving aside the possibilities of conquest of the north through force or Serb surrender to Pristina – one of two alternatives will have to be chosen: special autonomy for the north (some form of Ahtisaari-Plus) or partition (adjustment of the border with Serbia to the Ibar).

Increased autonomy for the north within Kosovo might be the more elegant solution. But why rule out partition? It has been a constant refrain from pro-independence Balkanistas that partition of Kosovo would set a bad precedent for elsewhere in the Balkans. But it cannot be disputed that the independence of Kosovo – whether one views this as good or not – is an ethnic partition of Serbia. The precedent already exists. Furthermore, it is not at all clear why breaking states along ethnic boundaries is a bad thing. Where there has been internal conflict along ethnic lines, it may be best to allow people who wish to live in their own "national" community the space to do so. Some such communities might be deemed too small to be self-sustainable. In some places, groups may be too intermixed to make simple separation possible. But these are practical issues and not ones of principle. Where peoples can be separated and wish to be, why not allow them? Where separation is not realistic, then perhaps it is better for the international community to provide the necessary support for imposing a power-sharing regime with minority rights. This is what the Ahtisaari Plan provides for Kosovo and may work south of the Ibar, where the Serbs are surrounded by Albanians. But in the north, Serbs live as part of Serbia. Drawing the boundary at the Ibar would be a natural possibility.

Pristina's international sponsors may have to decide which outcome they prefer – northern autonomy within Kosovo or partition – and then bring the Albanians to accept it. (The Albanians will hold out for everything, as long as they can.) The alternative seems to be the current frozen conflict and continued international presence in Kosovo for quite some time. But can calm persist in the north without continued restraint and an eventual political solution?

Gerard M. Gallucci is a retired US diplomat and UN peacekeeper. He worked as part of US efforts to resolve the conflicts in Angola, South Africa and Sudan and as Director for Inter-American Affairs at the National Security Council. He served as UN Regional Representative in Mitrovica, Kosovo from July 2005 until October 2008. Gerard is also a member ofTransCconflict's advisory board. The views expressed in this piece are his own and do not represent the position of any organization. You can read more of Mr. Gallucci's analysis of current developments in Kosovo and elsewhere by clicking here.

http://www.transconflict.com/2010/11/kosovo-the-alternatives-for-the-north-231/

Kosovo Organ Harvesting: The Plot Thickens, by Seth J. Frantzman

 

http://www.balkanstudies.org/articles/kosovo-organ-harvesting-plot-thickens

Kosovo Organ Harvesting: The Plot Thickens

by Seth J. Frantzman

In his latest column (Bloody Coexistence, Nov.23), one of Israel's leading investigative journalists explores the bizarre horror and little-known roots of the Kosovo organ-trafficking ring. Almost all those involved were respected professionals in their communities…

In mid-November, the world media reported that Interpol was hunting for seven members of an organ-trafficking ring. They were accused of operating a clinic called Medicus in Pristina, the capital of Kosovo. Most news media were excited to reveal that two Israelis were among those named in the 46-page Interpol report. Less interest was shown in the other international members of the ring – Turkish and Albanian Muslims. Only one Israeli, Moshe Harel, was wanted by Interpol in connection with the ring. The other Israeli, Zaki Shapira, was listed as an unindicted coconspirator. A Turkish doctor and five Albanians were also indicted for their role in diverse criminal activities such as "trafficking in persons and unlawful exercise of medical activity."

THE ORIGINS of the ring appear relatively recent. According to reports, Lutfi Dervishi, a urologist and professor at Pristina University, visited Istanbul in 2006 to attend a conference. At the conference he let it be known that he was looking for someone who could perform organ transplants. He was contacted by Yusuf Sonmez, a Turkish national and surgeon who has a history of involvement with illegal organ harvesting.

Sonmez maintains a website which claims he completed his residency in surgery at Istanbul University medical faculty in 1984 and was an expert in kidney transplants. According to a November 3 article in Hurriyet he also worked at the Ministry of Health. He completed his first transplant from a live donor in 1993, and by 2006 claimed he had performed more than,1,300 kidney transplants. In 2005 he was running a private hospital in Istanbul. Turkish websites indicate that his hospital was shut down in 2007 after a police raid, during which his brother Bulent was also detained. He received a suspended sentence.

Sonmez again fell out with the law over organ thefts in 2008. His medical license was revoked and he was banned from the profession for six months – which news outlets criticized as too weak a punishment. At the time Turkish articles called him the "the Turkish butcher" and Hurriyet referred to him as "Frankenstein." In 2010, when it emerged that he was involved with organ trafficking in Kosovo, he turned up in Azerbaijan, apparently free to go about his bloody business. His status at present is not clear.

In 2006, while at the height of his power, operating his own clinic prior to the police raids, he contacted Dervishi. Sonmez then contacted a Turkish-Israeli, Harel, who according to the government of Kosovo was born in 1950 in Turkey. Harel later allegedly "identified, recruited and transported the victims, as well as managed the cash payments before the surgeries." Sonmez, it seems, was also the contact for Shapira, who has a history of brushes with the law regarding organ harvesting. Shapira was once head of kidney transplant services at Beilinson Medical Center in Petah Tikva. He was also a member of the Bellagio Task Force on global transport ethics. In the 1990s he ran afoul of ethics charges in Israel and moved to Turkey. In 2007 Shapira was arrested in Turkey; it seems he was already connected with Sonmez's hospital. Now Sonmez brought Harel and Shapira to Pristina to help run Dervishi's clinic. The clinic was operated by Dervishi's son, Arban. Illir Rrecaj, a Kosovo Health Ministry official, granted the clinic a license to do urological checkups but was, according to Interpol, privy to the actual goings on there.

 

In October 2008 police suspicions were raised when a poor man was dumped at the Pristina airport and it was found his kidney had been removed. A raid on the Medicus clinic discovered that the organ harvesting ring had been bringing in poverty stricken patients from countries such as Turkey and Russia, promising them 15,000 euros, and then selling their organs for upward of 100,000 euros. Rrecaj was dismissed from his post. On November 4, Harel was arrested.

BUT ACCORDING to other sources it appears the tentacles of the case go deeper. The Serbian newspaper Blic claims that Dervishi was also involved in the murder and harvesting of organs from Serbs who were captured by ethnic Albanian terrorists during the Kosovo war of 1999. After the war there were rumors that Kosovar Albanians were keeping Serb prisoners in camps near the Kosovo border with Albania.

A Spanish KFOR contingent attempted to penetrate the village of Vrelo but was called back. Carla Del Ponte, the former chief prosecutor of the UN for war crimes committed in Yugoslavia, claimed in her 2008 book that as many as 300 Serbs were murdered for their organs just across the border in the Albanian town of Burrel. The infamous "clinic" in Burrel became known as the "yellow house," but not until 2004 was it visited by a UN team to investigate the accusations. By then, only a few traces of blood remained.

According to Blic, in 1998 during the Kosovo crises, "[a] witness told Serbian war crimes prosecutors that he saw Dr. Lutfi Dervishi at locations where it was suspected that organs had been extracted from civilian prisoners and sold later." Another Serbian source alleges that Shapira was also involved in 1999 in instructing those who harvested the organs, and according to the Croatian magazine Politika, he showed up in Macedonia in the same year, connected to a similar operation. This claim is based on the fact that he had Turkish connections who were supporting the Kosovars during the war.

Whatever the case, it seems the recent organ-trafficking scandal is merely the latest emergence of the dark cloud that has hung over Kosovo for years; it has become a center for human and organ trafficking in Europe.

What makes the present case so shocking is that almost all those involved were respected professionals in their communities.A professor from Pristina, a member of the Kosovo Health Ministry, an Istanbul doctor and pioneer in organ transplants and a former head of transplant services at Beilinson. What made these men turn evil? What sort of strange dark coexistence is this, where Turks and Israelis work together to steal organs?

Does their ring have its origins in the dirty war fought in Kosovo in 1998-1999? The anti-Israel and anti-Semitic media like to shed light on supposed Israeli involvement in organ trafficking, but what this case shows is that the networks behind the story have much deeper and more disturbing roots.

NATO summit: The death of the west

The death of the west

19 November 2010 România libera Bucharest

 

The NATO summit to be held in Lisbon on 19 and 20 November will be marked by the rise of Russian influence in the alliance. A Romanian editorialist highlights the vital importance of the link between Eastern Europe and Washington.

Cristian Câmpeanu

Romanians should get used to the idea of living in a Europe where NATO will no be longer able to guarantee their security. The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis has left us with only one option: the United States.

Hello and welcome to the 19th century! From now on — now being the first day of the "historic" NATO summit in Lisbon — we will be living in a new historic reality and a new geopolitical era. The summit is "historic," but not for the reasons cited by NATO officials and political leaders.

It is not a question — as promised in the promotional literature for the event — of inaugurating a more efficient and flexible alliance, but of official recognition for the death of the strategic and military concept of the "West," and the transformation of NATO into an EU-Russian political club, with the United States as an associate member.

The "problem" of Russia

It is a development that was in many ways inevitable. The disappearance of the Cold War enemy in the shape of the Soviet Union made NATO a victim of its own success. The wars in the Balkans highlighted Europe's military weakness, and the war in Afghanistan created a rift between the US and its European allies. Their inability to make a significant contribution to victory over the Taliban or to the stabilisation of the country, and the fact that some members of the alliance seemed to be incapable of joining in the fight while others were forced to take most of the casualties, resulted in the gradual crumbling of the alliance.

Some commentators have remarked on the historical irony of the fact that NATO should perish in Afghanistan, a country that was also responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union. But in so doing, they overlook the role played by Iraq, which triggered the first real crisis of the "West."

Then there is also the "problem" of Russia. The arrival of Vladimir Putin and his team of former KGB operatives in the Kremlin wiped out whatever small progress Boris Yeltsin had made in terms of democracy and the rule of law. In spite of all this, Western countries have turned a blind eye to abuses and the closing of Russian society in exchange for access to natural gas and cheap raw materials. And this has resulted in a widening rift between NATO allies that came to the fore at the 2008 Bucharest summit when Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy both fought tooth and nail to defend the status quo, and reject the Membership Action Plans (MAP) of the Ukraine and Georgia — a position that amounted to an implicit recognition of Russia's right to a veto in NATO affairs. Only a few months later, the invasion of Georgia heralded a de facto return to the 19th-century world of spheres of influence and the Concert of Europe, which had previously been wiped out by the massacre that was the First World War.

Americans are not going to disappear

The return to this world order will be made official tomorrow by the invitation extended to Russia to participate in the anti-missile shield. A study recently published by the European Council on Foreign Relations already speaks of the new architeture of European security that will be determined within the framework of a trilateral dialogue between the EU, Russia and Turkey. NATO does not enter into the equation. But the EU does not really mean Europe's 27 member states. Merkel made promises about European policy to Medvedev  without consulting her European partners, and there is no denying the symbolic importance of the Russian President's refusal to accept an invitation to the Lisbon summit addressed to him by the General Secretary of NATO, before finally agreeing to turn up on the behest of Sarkozy and Merkel.

Of course, the Americans are not going to disappear from the region, because they have to defend their interests in the Middle East and look after the anti-missile shield. Even if the Obama administration has wiped the slate clean and the White House is ready to give Russia the benefit of the doubt, the reinforcement of the alliance with the United States remains the best security option, better than joining the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis.

No doubt we will be conscious of yet another historical irony when the Russian troops that were posted here in the communist era return to Romania in their new role as "advisers"  on the installation of the new anti-missile shield.

Co-operation
European defence on the back burner

Barack Obama is coming to the NATO summit in Lisbon on 19 and 20 November "to mediate the conflict between Merkel and Sarkozy", announces i. The Portuguese daily explains that nuclear deterrents are one bone of contention between the two leaders: "Germany thinks NATO ought to set an example in disarmament, while France thinks the nuclear option is vital to Europe's future."

This disagreement is one of several that might nip the European defence scheme in the bud. "From the Franco-British summit in London to the North Atlantic summit in Lisbon, the French defence policy seems to be scuppering Europe's every ambition in the space of a fortnight," writes political scientist Louis Gautier in Le Monde. Following the military cooperation deal with London signed on 2 November, Paris "is turning its back on European defence". "Struggling as it is to fund their own armies, France and the UK have opted to team up in what may be a vain hope of prolonging their military leadership in Europe." But their deal "runs counter to the European spirit" in that it "moves France away from Germany, our partner (in matters of armament as well)" laments the professor, "at the very time when Germany is busy overhauling its whole defence system", i.e. professionalising its army.

http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/397711-death-west

HOW OLD IS THE NEW NATO CONCEPT?

Zivadin Jovanovic                                                    November, 2010.

Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

 

                          

                      HOW OLD IS THE NEW NATO CONCEPT?

 

In the eve of the NATO Lisbon summit there is a need to recall that eleven years ago Serbia (FRY) was a testing ground and first victim of so called new concept of NATO strategy which is to be formally endorsed in Lisbon November 19/20.

It is expected that the leaders of NATO members will, among other things, reauthorize themselves to undertake military actions beyond the area of their own territories, in fact, all over the globe. What will be necessary is to just formally proclaim that in certain region, certain country their interests are jeopardized – economic, energy, trade, routes. NATO will not seek authorization of the UN Security Council – it will act by its own merits. It imposes itself above UN, OSCE and all other international bodies. Division of burden and tasks with European Union will be the pillar of the new NATO strategic concept.

This concept was openly tested in Serbia (FRY) in 1999. "NATO has now had more than a decade of experience in the requirements to do expeditionary operations" – stated Michele Flournoy recently explaining the background of 21^st century NATO strategy to be adopted at the Lisbon Summit. One can suppose that "more than a decade of experience" include also NATO interventions in the civil wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995, occupations of Afghanistan 2001 and of Irak 2003. What have been results of USA/NATO "expeditionary operations"? What are human losses, what are the losses in terms of instability, insecurity, financial and economic set-backs and lasting poverty, criminalization?  Are the Balkans, Afghanistan, Irak and other regions which have been victims of USA/NATO "expeditionary operations" more stable, more economically advanced today then before?

Putting aside other regions and other examples, let us recall only that during 72 days of continuous military aggression against Serbia NATO left thousands of dead, about 10.000 wounded, two thirds civilians, economy completely destroyed, environment polluted by depleted uranium missiles, hundreds of thousands of displaced. Even today, some of the buildings in the heart of Belgrade remain in ruins while over 200.000 of Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija cannot return to their homes.

NATO countries supported unilateral illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia (2008), they led the process of recognition of illegal creature of theirs. 

In the 90-ties many NATO countries had been financing, training and arming terrorist KLA. In return, KLA was their ground force in the time of aggression. Today NATO is arming, training and financing illegal Army of illegal Kosovo and Metohija composed of elements of former terrorist KLA. USA, Britain, Germany and Turkey are leading in this process.

No wonder that Kosovo and Metohija is perceived by many countries as NATO-state (NATO-stan), by others as a narco-state. In any case, military base "Bondstil" in Kosovo remains the largest USA base in Europe (some claim in the world). Some 9.000 NATO tropes today still occupy Kosovo while the Province continues to be safe heaven for narco-mafia, transit route of heroin from Afghanistan to Central and Northern Europe, for all sorts of international organized crime.

The implication of NATO aggression and unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija is instability in the region, growing socio-economic tensions.

At the end of October 2010 "representatives" of Albanians from Serbia, FYROM (Macedonia), Greece and Montenegro gathered in Tirana from where they formally launched common objective – to establish "natural Albania". For some reasons they did not say Greater Albania". All Albanians in one state! It should be recalled that before that gathering, high representatives of Albania, including the Prime Minister himself, called for unification of all Albanians. Former head of OSCE mission to Kosovo (KVM), USA ambassador William Walker at the beginning of November 2010, made a statement that Albanians from Kosovo have the right to unite with Albania. All in all, there are open claims for new redrawing of the borders in the Balkan.

NATO aggression on Serbia in 1999, NATO strategy in general, led to rise of secessions, legitimization of interventions, undermining of the role of UN and international law.

NATO has not resolved any problem in the Balkans, neither could it do so. Instead, NATO made the Balkan region of prolonged instability. The same applies to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Irak. Is this the role of NATO that Europe and the world want to see in the whole of 21 century?

 

With the best wishes,

 

Živadin Jovanović

Belgrade Forum for e World of Equals

Sremska 6/IV sprat

Tel:   + 381 11 32 83 778

Mob: + 381 63 327 859

 

 

Lisbon NATO Summit: Time for reflection

Lisbon NATO Summit: Time for reflection

14.11.2010 | 20:16

NATO is the anathema of today's international community, serving no purpose other than pandering to the needs, whims and caprices of the arms lobby which gravitates around the White House, creating a supra-national umbrella apparently lending credence to its expansionist policies.

As billions of people around the world wonder how they are going to put a crust of bread on the table at dinner time, Lisbon's luxury hotels are all booked up for the visit of the NATO delegations, representing many of the countries which spent centuries siphoning off resources under imperialist policies, destroying peoples and cultures and committing massacres.

And as the NATO delegations gather for the conference, there is an enormous cloud on the horizon, so enormous it blots out the sun illuminating NATO's very existence: what is NATO?

NATO began as a military and political alliance to defend the North Atlantic space against attack, a mutual defence agreement guaranteeing a massive response to any attack on a member state way back in 1949, over sixty years ago. Most of Africa was still ruled by imperialist powers, the ink was not yet dry on India's or Pakistan's treaties of independence from the British Raj, Queen Elizabeth II (who today is celebrating almost her diamond anniversary, 6 decades, on the throne) was just a royal princess, Churchill was yet to have another term as Prime Minister of the UK.

This attack never came, mainly because the Warsaw Pact was essentially a defensive military alliance, and therefore any talk about NATO "winning" the Cold War is ridiculous, and proof of sour grapes by those who knew very well that had NATO ever started hostilities, the Soviet Union would have obliterated its forces and the main cities of its member states within minutes.

So when the Warsaw Pact dissolved voluntarily on July 1, 1991 following the voluntary dissolution of the USSR and the reshaping of the geo-political space it had occupied between January 19, 1990 and December 31, 1991 why did NATO not follow suit?

Thousands of pages have been written on this topic but let us condense them into one or two: NATO exists on one level, a military one, with pretexts to perpetuate its own existence existing on another two, the political and social areas. And the more we study, the more we see that the military arm of NATO is the head of the octopus.

Pretexts, indeed, because when the Warsaw Pact dissolved, NATO lied, giving various pledges over the years that it would not station "substantial combat forces" on territories belonging to the former Warsaw Pact. Yet NATO subsequently did expand, creating new markets for its weapons and creating new sources of financing for Washington's wars.

That having been said, the rest is easy to explain. Take for example the trillion-dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the need to finance an expansionist policy based upon control of the Earth's energy resources, not by Lisbon, or Tirana, or Copenhagen, or Brussels, but by Washington).

It is easy to explain when we see that the Pentagon likes to dole out military contracts for weaponry tested in the battlefield, hence the need to create more conflicts and the more member states involved, the greater the sense of legitimacy.

It is easy to explain when we see that under NATO's able management, the opium production in Afghanistan, suppressed by the Taleban, has increased not four, nor fourteen but forty-fold. It is easy to explain when we see the need to create an ever-wider umbrella of legitimacy to guarantee that those responsible for NATO's war crimes will never be held accountable. Added to this, under NATO, Afghanistan has also become the world's leading supplier of hashish.

As a military alliance, NATO is an abject failure, restricted to paying off the Sunni militia in Iraq not to attack and to paying the Taleban to accompany NATO convoys in Afghanistan, while it is common knowledge that neither the Taleban, nor Al Qaeda, can be defeated by this multi-national force.

As a political grouping, how constitutional is it for NATO member states to support fellow members whose ex-leaders are the subject of arrest warrants for war crimes at the ICC in The Hague?

And as an organization which is trying to forge a social vector to justify itself, who or what is NATO and what right does it have to supplant the efforts of the UNO? And here lies the crux of the matter: in an international community with a United Nations Organization supposedly responsible for the resolution of international conflict and crisis management and now without a Warsaw Pact, where does NATO fit in?

Nowhere.

The only option open to NATO in Lisbon is to do the decent thing and disband, as a mutual and multilateral token of goodwill. Yet this will not happen, for the psyche behind NATO is sinister and not decent and the organization is anything but multilateral. Ask Portuguese President Anibal Silva about the time he was Prime Minister, cowering in a bunker, at the time of the first Gulf War, and the pressures NATO exerted at the time upon the country which now hosts the Summit...

Now, if NATO engaged Russia and the CSTO with a view to creating a worldwide rapid reaction force, integrating it into a UNO which was universally respected, nobody would have an axe to grind.

To note, the anti-NATO organizations gathering in Lisbon must remember that they represent the anti-NATO international community and as such have the obligation to behave in a way which respects the law and does not bring the image of those who have fought long and hard for justice against this violent anachronism into disrepute.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

 

http://www.moscowtopnews.com/

Pravda.Ru

 

Wolfgang Ischinger | Kosovo and Serbia: Options for a Modus Vivendi?

 

Wolfgang Ischinger / Oliver Rolofs

 

Kosovo and Serbia: Options for a Modus Vivendi?

 

Summary

 

On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reaffirmed the view that the Republic of Kosovo is, and will remain, an independent state. The advisory opinion and the last UN resolution of the General Assembly on Kosovo of September 2010 – eleven years after the intervention of NATO – is hopefully going to usher in a modus vivendi for both Belgrade and Pristina.

The key elements needed to settle the dispute had already been developed by the Kosovo troika in 2007 using Ahtisaari's proposals as a guideline. Now they have to be implemented. To get the dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina going, several elements are important: The EU needs to live up to their responsibility of supporting peace and stability in the entire region. For Serbia it is time to look ahead. From a political and economic point of view it is overdue that relations between Kosovo and Serbia return to normal.

For a productive dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina, the article discusses six approaches to resolve the bilateral dispute and the EU's current dilemma of not being able to take decisions or lead due to internal dissent. The EU should assume a clear leadership role and develop perspectives for the region, and Belgrade and Pristina must find a modus vivendi with each other as they aspire to join the EU.

 

http://www.suedosteuropa-gesellschaft.com/mitteilungen/summaries/2010/summaries_04_05_2010.pdf

Western Capitalism Is In Crisis: Deception, Delusion and Abuse

Western Capitalism in Decline

 

 

ByPeter Morici, TheStreet.com Senior Contributor , On Tuesday June 8, 2010, 9:42 am EDT

NEW YORK (TheStreet) -- Democratic capitalism is in eclipse.

From Berlin to Tokyo, governments struggle to instigate enough growth to pay their bills and gainfully employ workers, meanwhile, China enjoys breakneck progress.

Democratic capitalism is not flawed. Rather, government policy-makers are destroying a system that took mankind from dark feudal superstitions to cracking the secrets of life with deceptions, delusions and abuse.

From Athens to Sacramento, politicians have deceived voters by telling them pension systems can be constructed allowing retirement at ages 55 or 60. Whether funded by savings and investments or taxes, no solvent pension system is possible that permits educated professionals, unionized workers and government employees, who get most of the income and benefits, to work only 30 or 35 years and retire for another 20 or 25 years.

In the United States, President Obama has convinced American families earning less than $250,000 a year that they can have guaranteed health care that costs 50% more than what Germans and Canadians pay and double what the British shell out without paying a dime in additional health insurance premiums and taxes.

To make that work, he will have to start selling shares in the Brooklyn Bridge --thankfully Mayor Bloomberg owns it.

Sadly, after Greece defaults the dominos won't stop in Berlin but in Washington.

Politicians have deluded themselves into believing an education system that encourages young people to "find themselves" instead of "finding something productive" will give society enough scientists and engineers to solve the tough problems needed to perpetuate growth. They have deluded themselves into thinking that professors spending six hours a week or less teaching and the rest thinking great thoughts, or verbally pistol-whipping the society that supports them, is somehow wealth-creating.

Finally, free markets can't be wholly free but from Tokyo to Berlin national leaders have peculiar notions about who should compete, who should be regulated and how.

Most national leaders having been educated in squeaky clean environs like Harvard, Oxford and the University of Tokyo believe anything created by hand, other than an exquisite meal or with a computer keystroke, is somehow unworthy of western post-industrial society.

Hence, they have granted virtually free access to western markets for manufacturers from China. For its part, China maintains high tariffs and other arcane import barriers on western products, subsidizes exports through an undervalued currency, and offers other inducements to keep Chinese products artificially cheap on world markets. China grows at 10% a year, and the West sheds millions of "unworthy" manufacturing jobs and stagnates.

Meanwhile, in New York, London and elsewhere 30-year-old MBAs pull down bonuses of one, 10 and $20 million a year for trading securities that really don't exist and creating havoc that have cost U.S. and European governments upward of $4 trillion to clean up.

Simply, on Harvard Square and at Kings College, where tenured professors supported by the wealth of dead people inbreed and define our values -- remember where Barack Obama learned about law and economics -- the intelligentsia has decided IT entrepreneurs, financiers and Hollywood stars should be paid more than God.

The rest of us, suffering this abuse, should be satisfied with low pay, unemployment benefits and subsidized health care, all paid for borrowing from the Chinese.

From Barack Obama to Angela Merkel the system is suffering from delusions of grandeur, self deception and good old fashioned abuse by leaders who address the world as Ivy League intellectuals think it should, rather than how the facts of physics, demography and economics define it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Western-Capitalism-in-tsmf-3665715476.html?x=0

Srdja Trifkovic: Ukraine: Yulia’s Breath of Stale Air

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2010/11/08/ukraine-yulias-breath-of-stale-air/

Ukraine: Yulia's Breath of Stale Air

by Srdja Trifkovic

Chronicles Online, November 8th, 2010

 

According to a seasoned observer of Moscow's political scene, the Russian political class cringed last Wednesday morning on learning that Obama had suffered a humiliating political defeat. The Russian leaders don't think much of Obama personally, but they are worried over what the Republican control of the House might mean for the fledgling "reset" in US-Russian relations—the solitary foreign policy success of the Obama administration.

"One vulnerable target for the Republicans is the new START treaty which the Obama administration hopes to get ratified during the lame-duck session of the sitting Senate," our source says. "Another likely victim of the Republican congressional victory could be Obama's measured and cautious policy in the post-Soviet space, with clear signs of respect for Russia's legitimate, if not privileged, interests in the region. Republican control of the House and its Foreign Affairs Committee means that they would be in a position to pass provocative legislation … or provide financial support and even military assistance to Georgia"—enough to disrupt and perhaps destroy the "reset."

 

Moscow's fears over the future of the "reset" may well be justified. The neoconservatives, atavistically Russophobic and unhappy with the limited "engagement" of America around the world over the past two years, hope to use the Republican majority in the House to advocate a fresh round of bear baiting. Their agenda is apparent from the prominence the neoconservative flaghship, The Wall Street Journal, gave to ex-Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko's plea ("Save Ukraine's Democracy," October 29) for renewed Western meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs.

 

Having failed to interest anyone influential the West in her ill-founded claims of foul play following the presidential election last winter, Ms. Tymoshenko has rehashed the same talking points in connection with last Sunday's elections of regional councils and city mayors in Ukraine. "They are not just a local affair," she warned, "[t]hey warrant international scrutiny due to mounting evidence suggesting that they will neither be free nor fair. The European Union should be wary of a neighboring country that controls the flow of gas to millions of EU households sliding into authoritarianism":

Since President Yanukovych assumed office eight months ago, political power has been centralized and civil liberties threatened. Most notably, media freedoms have come under attack. The opposition is virtually excluded from the airwaves as a result of pressure from media barons loyal to President Yanukovych and self-censorship for fear of displeasing the administration or having their offices inspected… Western leaders can exert great pressure on Ukraine's government, for instance by attaching conditions to the next round of IMF loans or by using negotiations on Ukraine's Association Agreement with the EU as a lever… We appeal to the international community to be vigilant and safeguard the European values we hold so dearly.

What the Journal's readers may not realize, but most Europeans who matter know very well, is that it was former President Yushchenko's and Ms. Tymoshenko's brand of "Ukrainian democracy"—the dysfunctional Orange duopoly—that brought instability of the gas flow "to millions of EU households" two years ago. It takes some chutzpah for Ms. Tymoshenko to try playing this particular card now. Her rise to prominence was entirely due to her ability to make tens of millions of euros by reselling Russian gas to Eastern Europe before the "Orange Revolution," when she belonged to the old post-Soviet oligarchy. She swiftly turned anti-Russian after Yushchenko's triumph by declaring loyalty to the West. When Moscow responded by declaring that Ukraine would have to pay the same price for gas as the Germans and Italians, she was quick to rediscover the advantages of being nice to the Kremlin yet again. Her tenure as Prime Minister was marked by rampant corruption at home and irresponsible posturing abroad. Her heavy-handed treatment of the opposition helped her enemies then, and makes her claim of holding European values "so dearly" ridiculous now.

 

Having spent a week in Kiev last June, I can attest that following the end of the Orange regime Ukraine is becoming a more normal country. Russophobic Orangism has always been a minority obsession, but after Yushchenko it is discredited as a practical project. Today it is confined to the Galician fringe in the west of the country. The rest of Ukraine is finally getting on with focusing on pragmatic solutions to real problems. That means: NATO is off the agenda, there will be no gas disputes, the Black Sea Fleet's home base lease has been extended, lip service is still paid to the EU membership in the knowledge that it will not happen.

 

Ms. Tymoshenko refuses to accept that she is a failed politician devoid of new tricks. Unwilling to leave the scene, she is trying to play the role of Czechoslovakia's Gustav Husak in 1968—as the voice of ideological orthodoxy demanding foreign intervention. Her attempt is sordid. It would be irrelevant, were it not for the Journal giving it undue prominence. This indicates that the neocons have not given up on provoking Russia. They are irritated that having good relations with Moscow is a top priority in Paris, Berlin and Rome. They would like to return to the policy of encouraging an impoverished, practically defenseless nation such as Ukraine to become their pliant tool against the superpower next door. They have learnt nothing from Russia's response to Saakashvili's attack on South Ossetia in the summer of 2008, when Moscow maneuvered Washington into a position of weakness unseen since the final days of the Carter presidency three decades ago.

 

The EU and Obama are guilty of many sins, but at least they both see the need for a sane relationship with Moscow, the one that acknowledges that Russia has legitimate interests in her "near-abroad."
 Ukraine's geographic position as the natural transit route from the oil and gas fields of Russia, the Caucasus and Central Asia to Central and Western Europe is a valuable asset. The previous administration in Kiev unnecessarily turned that asset into a liability and a source of periodic friction with Moscow and the EU. It failed to grasp that being a transit route for a strategic commodity is not tantamount to having the commodity itself – especially if alternative transit routes are potentially available. The issue has always been political rather than economic. The new government understands that the solution is in a plus-sum-game model of shared responsibility and shared profits.

 

It is ironic that the "pro-Western reformists" Yushchenko and Tymoshenko were regarded as discredited by the international financial institutions, while President Yanukovych—maligned by the neocons as a neo-Soviet autocrat—is regarded by them as solid and trustworthy. Ukraine needs to continue reforming its energy policy, tightening fiscal discipline, combating corruption, reforming the judiciary, and ensuring free and fair elections—but the task is neither unique to Ukraine, nor more daunting than it is elsewhere.

 

Tymoshenko is still paying the price of her miscalculation from exactly a year ago. She could have started to build bridges with future opposition partners long before her expected defeat, but this did not happen due to her excessive self-confidence in the run-up to the presidential election. She remains blind to the fact that no consolidation of Ukraine's opposition can be effected on the basis of Orange demagoguery of six years ago. It may take months or even years for the Ukrainian opposition to come to terms with the new realities at home and abroad, but Ms. Tymoshenko is not the one to do it.

 

The U.S. policy toward Ukraine has always been and remains inseparable from its relations with Russia. Yanukovich's visit to Washington last spring marked the beginning of a genuine reset in the U.S.–Russian relations. It was Obama's helpful signal to those in Russia, notably President Medvedev, who believe that such a reset in Moscow's relations with the United States is possible. Premier Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov are reputed to take a more jaundiced view, having experienced the mendacity and duplicity that characterized the Russia policy of the Bush-Cheney administration. Continuing to reassure Moscow vis-à-vis Ukraine would serve the American interest in a key region, defined with realism and pursued with pragmatism.

 

EU report strongly criticises Serbia's progress

ZELJKO PANTELIC

Today @ 18:19 CET

Apart from a few warm words on the fight against drugs and organised crime, the European Commission does not see much cause to applaud Serbia in this year's progress report.

The report, seen by WAZ.EUobserver, contains an abundance of criticism of Serbia's lack of judiciary reform and against a market economy caught up in red tape. The Brussels body also raises a warning finger against the discrimination of minorities.

The most sensitive part of the progress report, however, is quite balanced, testifying to partial improvements in Serbia's relationships in the region.

The commission praises Serbia's steps towards reconciliation with neighbouring countries, particularly with Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. But it underlines that full cooperation with the war crimes tribunal in The Hague remains an international obligation and a key priority of the European partnership. The importance of good relations with Pristina is also highlighted.

"Serbia needs to demonstrate a more constructive attitude towards Kosovo's participation in regional trade and cooperation," says the report. "It should recognize Kosovo's customs stamps and strengthened cooperation with the EULEX rule of law mission. Regional cooperation was affected by a lack of agreement between Serbia and Kosovo on the latter's participation in regional meetings."

The report's writers are calling for cooperation: "An acceptable and sustainable solution for the participation of both in regional fora needs to be agreed as soon as possible. This is essential for inclusive and functioning regional cooperation. Serbia still does not accept the Kosovo customs stamps notified by UNMIK. In Kosovo, Serbia maintained parallel structures and organised parallel municipal by-elections," said the report, which will be publicly presented by enlargement commissioner Stefan Füle on 10 November in Brussels.

In order to correctly gauge the paper's gist, it is necessary to decipher Brussels' diplomatic vocabulary. "Some progress" or "limited progress" means that a country has not performed too well. "Progress" stands for sufficient but not impressive results. When the commission mentions "good progress" or "substantial progress", that amounts to a verbal slap on the back, meaning that the country has lived up to expectations.

While the Brussels executive is applauding Serbia for making "progress" towards meeting the political criteria, its assessment of judicial reforms is rather embarrassing for the Balkan state.

"Judicial reform has continued but there were serious shortcomings and non-transparency in the reappointment procedure of judges and prosecutors. Judges and prosecutors were not heard during the procedure and did not receive adequate explanations for the decisions. This puts into question the independence of the judiciary and may give room for political influence.

"The substantial backlog of pending cases remains a matter of concern. Corruption remains prevalent in many areas and continues to be a serious problem. In the absence of a new law, control of the funding of political parties and financing of election campaigns remains weak. The number of final convictions, especially in high-level cases, remain low. Public procurement, privatization and public expenditure remain areas of concern," the report said.

The commission will urge Serbia to undertake further efforts to improve the quality of its legislation and bring electoral laws fully into line with European standards.

"The coalition government remained stable and continued to demonstrate a high degree of consensus on EU integration as a strategic priority. However the preparation and implementation of new legislation need to become more effective."

Constitutional and legislative provisions for the protection of freedom of expression are in place, according to the report, but incidents involving hate speech, threats and attacks, in particular against journalists, have continued.

Despite laws protecting social and economic rights, discrimination continues to be practiced, particularly against Roma, the gay and lesbian community, women, national minorities and disabled people.

No progress has been registered regarding property rights, an area without an adequate legal basis for property restitution. Economic criteria have not been well met either.

"The progress in establishing a functioning market economy has been limited," says the report. "Serbia needs to make more efforts in restructuring its economy so as to cope in the medium term with the competitive pressures and market forces within the EU. The adoption of timely and appropriate measures in agreement with the IMF was key in re-establishing macroeconomic stability.

"Serbia has further postponed the reforms to tackle the biggest structural shortcomings. Despite gradual economic recovery, the labour market continued to deteriorate with decreasing employment and increasing unemployment."

The commission also notes the repeated delay in privatising state-owned companies and that the business environment continues to be dominated by red tape and a lack of legal predictability. Furthermore, deficiencies in competition and infrastructure bottlenecks remain barriers to business.

The most positive part of the progress report states that Serbia is well advanced in the sector of industry, small and medium enterprises, agriculture and food safety and that good progress has been made in the fight against drugs and organised crime.

Back to front page

http://waz.euobserver.com/887/31202